program to download archived google groups posts by author

[Guest]

I am looking for a program out there that can extract posts of a particular
author on google groups and ave them in one txt file hopefully without any
replies, is such a prog availble?

any help will be greatly appreciated

 

[Paul N Burke]

I am looking for a program out there that can extract posts of a particular
author on google groups and ave them in one txt file hopefully without any
replies, is such a prog availble?

any help will be greatly appreciated

Have you the authors permission to do that ?

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Have you the authors permission to do that ?

Besides this being off-topic: Does Google have the authors permission?

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[John Bokma]

Besides this being off-topic: Does Google have the authors permission?

Did the author understand Usenet before he/she started to use it?

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Besides this being off-topic: Does Google have the authors permission
[to archive their Usenet messages]?

Implicit permission, yes.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Besides this being off-topic: Does Google have the authors permission
[to archive their Usenet messages]?

Implicit permission, yes.

To archive, although I'm never to fond of 'opt-out'. To archive. Not to reuse in
some goofey interface such as Google Groups, as if it was the next great Google
invention.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[John Bokma]

Besides this being off-topic: Does Google have the authors
permission [to archive their Usenet messages]?

Implicit permission, yes.

To archive, although I'm never to fond of 'opt-out'. To archive. Not
to reuse in some goofey interface such as Google Groups, as if it was
the next great Google invention.

It isn't. It was deja news. And what's the point of an archive if you can't
access it? Moreover, are there restrictions on how one makes an interface
to an archive?

 

[Toby Inkster]

Does Google have the authors permission?
[to archive posts]

Google creates a copy of your post on their server; so do thousands of
other servers. The other servers only keep their copies for a week or so;
Google keeps their copy for a lot longer.

Length of retention is the only difference between Google any other NNTP
servers; length of retention does not factor into copyright law AFAIK.

So if Google's copies are illegal, so are the copies on every other
server. (And that is quite possible!)

 

[Big Bill]

Besides this being off-topic: Does Google have the authors permission
[to archive their Usenet messages]?

Implicit permission, yes.

To archive, although I'm never to fond of 'opt-out'. To archive. Not to reuse in
some goofey interface such as Google Groups, as if it was the next great Google
invention.

In an inaccessible archive, then? Who'd know?

BB

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Does Google have the authors permission?
[to archive posts]

Google creates a copy of your post on their server;

If it stops there, fine. But it then uses the copy in some fancy but buggy
interface it calls Google Groups and encourages people to become 'member' to
participate in them. That part is quite different. I am just not sure I like
anyone using my posts for something interactive like that. Archive, searchable,
the like. Great. Reuse them for another purpose and you're slipping and sliding
somewhere not necessarily good.



--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

In an inaccessible archive, then? Who'd know?

No, just an archive will be fine. One can search through an archive all one
wants, just fine. Not communicate through it though. That is a big difference.

--

Your sig-separator is broken.


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[David Dorward]

If it stops there, fine. But it then uses the copy in some fancy but buggy
interface it calls Google Groups and encourages people to become 'member'
to participate in them.

Demon (and many others) encourage people to send them money to become
"customers" to participate in them.

 

[TJ]

In

Does Google have the authors permission?
[to archive posts]

Google creates a copy of your post on their server;

If it stops there, fine. But it then uses the copy in some fancy but
buggy interface it calls Google Groups and encourages people to
become 'member' to participate in them. That part is quite different.
I am just not sure I like anyone using my posts for something
interactive like that.

I don't understand the last part of the paragraph above. If you don't want
interaction, why post publically at all?

If it's just newsgroup interaction with incoming posts from Google Groups
that annoy you, there are many easily implemented ways around that.

Archive, searchable, the like. Great. Reuse
them for another purpose and you're slipping and sliding somewhere
not necessarily good.

I still don't think I understand. Are you saying you don't mind if your
posts get archived, so long as nobody can respond to them? Or just that
nobody who sees them via Google Groups need reply?

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

[Google Groups]

I still don't think I understand. Are you saying you don't mind if your
posts get archived, so long as nobody can respond to them? Or just that
nobody who sees them via Google Groups need reply?

I don't like the 'get to be a member and participate' bit of Google Groups. You
don't need to be a member to participate in usenet. I know I'me not. Where did
Google get the idea that they can use content created by _me_ and you and others
to create a member database they call their own? That's no good.


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Charles Sweeney]

Paul N Burke wrote

Have you the authors permission to do that ?

I wouldn't have thought he would have needed the author's permission.
Does Google have your permission to archive your posts?

 

[TJ]

In

[Google Groups]

I still don't think I understand. Are you saying you don't mind if
your posts get archived, so long as nobody can respond to them? Or
just that nobody who sees them via Google Groups need reply?

I don't like the 'get to be a member and participate' bit of Google
Groups.

Why? You personally are either a "member" of an ISP that includes Usenet
newsgroups as part of your service, or you subscribe to an outside source.

You don't need to be a member to participate in usenet.

Sure ya do. Be it ISP, news provider, or Google Groups, one is required to
be a 'member' to participate.

I
know I'me not. Where did Google get the idea that they can use
content created by _me_ and you and others to create a member
database they call their own? That's no good.

Ever heard of the X-No Archive header? I think Google still honors that,
though it's of no use if someone includes your entire post in a reply.

Please fix your signature.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

In

[Google Groups]

I still don't think I understand. Are you saying you don't mind if
your posts get archived, so long as nobody can respond to them? Or
just that nobody who sees them via Google Groups need reply?

I don't like the 'get to be a member and participate' bit of Google
Groups.

Why? You personally are either a "member" of an ISP that includes Usenet
newsgroups as part of your service, or you subscribe to an outside source.

You don't need to be a member to participate in usenet.

Sure ya do. Be it ISP, news provider, or Google Groups, one is required
to be a 'member' to participate.

I'm not sure. I just sense a difference in having an ISP provide newsgroups, a
newsserver provide newsgroups or Google provide not only newsgroups but also an
interface to participate in them (Google being the example here, since there are
others) and some subscription mechanism with it.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[TJ]

In

In

[Google Groups]

I still don't think I understand. Are you saying you don't mind if
your posts get archived, so long as nobody can respond to them? Or
just that nobody who sees them via Google Groups need reply?


I don't like the 'get to be a member and participate' bit of Google
Groups.

Why? You personally are either a "member" of an ISP that includes
Usenet newsgroups as part of your service, or you subscribe to an
outside source.

You don't need to be a member to participate in usenet.

Sure ya do. Be it ISP, news provider, or Google Groups, one is
required to be a 'member' to participate.

I'm not sure. I just sense a difference in having an ISP provide
newsgroups, a newsserver provide newsgroups or Google provide not
only newsgroups but also an interface to participate in them (Google
being the example here, since there are others) and some subscription
mechanism with it.

There's a BIG difference. And I don't blame you for having a problem with
posts from Google Groups. Who do you think took the overflow when AOL
discontinued Usenet service a while ago?

 

[David Dorward]

I'm not sure. I just sense a difference in having an ISP provide
newsgroups, a newsserver provide newsgroups or Google provide not only
newsgroups but also an interface to participate in them

Demon (and most others) provide an interface to participate in them - an
nntp server.

some subscription mechanism with it.

Like just about any other provider of Usenet access.

 

[Greg N.]

I don't like the 'get to be a member and participate' bit of Google
Groups. You don't need to be a member to participate in usenet.

Many old-fashioned usenet servers require you to be some kind of member,
either through an ISP contract or through other means of registration.
For many usenet setvers, you even need to pay extra.

Where did Google get the idea that they can use content
created by _me_ and you and others to create a member
database they call their own? That's no good.

Where did the old fashioned news servers get the idea that they can use
content created by _me_ and you and others and then charge you and me
and others to get access? That is worse, no?